Richard Dawkin

I'm a little scared! I don't mind admitting it. I've been reading (and listening to the Audio Book) "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. Firstly, let me state that I have always considered myself Agnostic. I neither believe nor do I "not" believe. Until there is evidence either way, I "fence sit". Reading Richards book I began to realise that the fence sitting posture is not one to take lightly. There is ample "evidence" to dispel the myth of a God (it doesn't matter who's god). There is no evidence to suggest there is one. But science is not about "proof", it's about "disproof". Would I be right in now saying that I am satisfied that there is enough evidence in favour of no god or should I continue to keep an open mind on the topic. Perhaps it is correct to believe the current evidence until disproved?

All of these arguments, those that support the arguments of Agnosticism and Atheism alike, are that there is something to be proved or not. I hear the view against allowing the teachings of creationists as it "is not real science". Correct. It isn't. But then, neither is Atheism or Agnosticism. Science relies on the remote possibility of proving a theory wrong. It does not rely on the proposition of that theory.After reading Richards book, I was originally left with the feeling I should quite my fence sitting and take a stance either way. My feeling is that I should fall on the side of the Atheist. But another thought crossed my mind. Isn't that almost as bad following the belief that there is a god? Is that accepting that science can prove or disprove the existence of a god?

Fundamentalism in any form is detrimental to the doctrines of Science. I believe many things have been done in the name of religion. But then, many things have been done in the name of Nationalism, racism, pure power. They are all just as morally reprehensible as each other. Does a firm Atheist stance not count as Fundamentalist?